[Nightmute]

Originally Posted by OMGBaselRocks!

ROFL. I just look at raw numbers? ROFL. Thats retarded. Those seasons are considered by majority of credible sportswriters as an all time best in league history.



Considering those players also won multiple titles and other individual accomplishments in those seasons mentioned above, I dont think its a smart thing to say that 'Its all about raw numbers" LOL.

Well then it's a good thing I didn't say "it's all about raw numbers." It was a simple question that you didn't answer.

[SlamJam]

Originally Posted by John

Why dont we just argue who is the better player between Ron Harper and Lebron James. I will say Ron Harper.

now here is something to discuss.

[PauloCatarino]

Originally Posted by SlamJam

now here is something to discuss.

Hmmm... Though one. Are we talking about Cleveland's Ron Harper? The Clippers'? The Bulls'?

[Piolo_Pascual]

Originally Posted by Nightmute

Well then it's a good thing I didn't say "it's all about raw numbers." It was a simple question that you didn't answer.

It does need any further breakdown. The players, their record breaking performances and legacy, all speaks for itself.

[Nightmute]

Okay let me rephrase the question, 'cause you're clearly not getting it. When comparing a players production, do you just look at basic stats, advanced stats or a combination of the two?

[DNKO]

Originally Posted by ehmunro

That DNKO was a grade school fanboy in the 90s that panics at the very thought that there may be a player that is one day considered better than his eight year old crush and has gone way off the deep end where LeBron is concerned.

Interesting.






Now discuss.

[Piolo_Pascual]

Originally Posted by Nightmute

Okay let me rephrase the question, 'cause you're clearly not getting it. When comparing a players production, do you just look at basic stats, advanced stats or a combination of the two?

Me and Kflo were not talking about productions alone, I think that's already been established a few pages back. I know what you're inferring. You want to slip the holy grail of stats (PeR) in the conversation to prove a point. But im not impressed on PeR alone to define a players career. There is so much variables and methods to compare legendary achievements and simplify that by using PeR.

[Pioneer10]

Originally Posted by OMGBaselRocks!

Me and Kflo were not talking about productions alone, I think that's already been established a few pages back. I know what you're inferring. You want to slip the holy grail of stats (PeR) in the conversation to prove a point. But im not impressed on PeR alone to define a players career. There is so much variables and methods to compare legendary achievements and simplify that by using PeR.

Per is not the only pace adjusted stat.

[Nightmute]

Originally Posted by OMGBaselRocks!

Me and Kflo were not talking about productions alone, I think that's already been established a few pages back. I know what you're inferring. You want to slip the holy grail of stats (PeR) in the conversation to prove a point. But im not impressed on PeR alone to define a players career. There is so much variables and methods to compare legendary achievements and simplify that by using PeR.

Jesus, your dense.

[Piolo_Pascual]

Originally Posted by Nightmute

Jesus, your dense.

Best comeback ever. I post stats and all you have are weak one liners. Pfft.

[Ras]

Originally Posted by 23AJ

Ras,

IMO those are tasteless and juvenile. Because they have no merit to the discussion at all. You going to tell me, that if you have a bone to pick with someone's opinion you need to add salty remarks on top of it ? Well I disagree regardless of how serious you think they are

I can agree that the salty comments aren't necessary, because you're right, they add nothing to the discussion.

I don't really think his statements are baseless. Nobody not one person, has shown any evidence if MJ was a bad jump shooter early in his career. All you have is rheteroic for and against MJ's jump shot early in his career. (If you look at the thread it's mostly against) and if you look at the thread it's mostly people arguing in favor of LeBron

I wouldn't say so, because no one has said LeBron is better at all. All people are saying is it's possible, and a lot of you seem to take offence to that. The reason no one has shown evidence of his lack of a jumper is because there probably isn't any data on that type of thing from those days. All we have are the people who saw it.

I agree the board is here to discuss, but let's do it in a civil fair, and enterprising way, that includes everyone in a positive way. I'm sick that every time a few select posters have a difference opinion, they get the thread jacked by countless handles, that are out to not only argue the opinion, but do it so in a way they try to make the poster look stupid. I'm much more in favor of debating to learn from one another, not to come off as a pretentious *******.

I know you're probably aware, but quite a few people on both sides of the fence do that.

Now..

As someone who's been watching the NBA since the early 80s, and falling in love with the Sixers, Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, and Bulls. I can swear to you that MJ's jump shot was never an issue. It wasn't picture perfect like it became as he worked on it, but he found the bottom of the basket more times than not. It also is true Mike was a very explosive player early in his career, and he got many dunks, lay ups, but he was still a very consistent jump shooter.

Look, you have had many explosive players come into the league, who get' lot's of dunks lay ups early on in their career especially SG's and SF's. However the reason they didn't shoot 53 percent from the field, is because they didn't have a consistent jump shot.

Or perhaps it just helped that he was Michael Jordan and could more or less get in there and finish as he pleased? I think Tony Parker was around 50% earlier in his career when he didn't have much a jumper to speak of. If you finish inside all the time, you're bound to have a much better shooting percentage. All I've heard from people in that time was his jumper was quite inconsistent for a few years and he got his points by getting inside whenever he wanted; he only developed a consistent jumper as his career passed.

[michelangelo]

Despite the unbelievable hype throughout his career, I legitimately believe MJ's game was UNDERRATED. People have talked so much trash about his so-called "weak" jumper. Are you kidding me? His jumper was of picture perfect form by the end of his VERY FIRST YEAR playing for North Carolina!

Although he didn't have the sick dribbling skills of the youngsters who followed him, neither did he palm the ball every time he dribbled, either. Without a shadow of a doubt, absolutely no one in the history of the game has approached Michael Jordan's fundamentals. Jump shot included.

LeBron's as bad as this boy is, has a jump shot rivaling Tim Hardaway's knuckler for ugliness. Kobe's J is superior to LeBron's, but nowhere near as pretty as Michael's. And that hang time let Michael double clutch at will, too. Debate over, LeBron is no Michael Jordan.

[lessthanjake]

I think you guys are all missing the point. Jordan had a very good jumper. But his shooting was still a weakness of sorts. This is because his jumper was only very good a step or two inside the three point line. He didn't have legitimate three point range, which could be construed as a weakness. He sort of got better three point range later, but he never really was a legit three point threat except in the years he played where the three point line had been moved in.

[michelangelo]

That's true, but keep in mind that the NBA 3 was only adopted in 1980, and the 3 did not exist at all in college basketball until 1987. In other words, MJ didn't work on his 3 point range at all in college or high school, and had to start working on it cold in the pros. In college when he played, it would've been foolish to work on a 25 foot jump shot when it counted for two, just like any other shot.

The youngsters these days, they start shooting three's in elementary school and hence integrate it into their game from day one.

[23AJ]

Originally Posted by lessthanjake

I think you guys are all missing the point. Jordan had a very good jumper. But his shooting was still a weakness of sorts. This is because his jumper was only very good a step or two inside the three point line. He didn't have legitimate three point range, which could be construed as a weakness. He sort of got better three point range later, but he never really was a legit three point threat except in the years he played where the three point line had been moved in.

The distance of the three point line doesn't make you a good or bad 3 point shooter, just from the distance you put your work in. MJ is the greatest interior basketball player ever. His need to be a 3 point specialist wasn't a major factor for his game. Also having a career 33 percent FG from 3 isn't all that bad. Also there's been plenty of great shooters that have come from over seas, and there 3 point distance is shorter than that of the NBA's 23'9", I believe in Fiba basketball the distance is 22'. Which is what the NBA made it in the NBA for a season or two. Then changed it back to the 23'9" in 1997.